Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (43203)	5/13/2010 10:41:03 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Statistically significant and important aren't relevant to the issue. Again the point is not what president (or really combination of president and congress, the new Republican congress elected during Clinton's time in office was more concerned about controlling spending than any other fairly recent congress) was best at controlling spending. The issue under discussion is the effect of tax changes on spending. Are you seriously arguing that tax increases help reduce spending, or even just limit spending increases? The argument that "taxes went up under Clinton, and spending was under control", is fairly meaningless. Not only do you have the whole "correlation doesn't imply causation" point, but here you have a single case of correlation, not a general trend. Also you haven't suggested any method by which higher taxes would tend to reign in spending.